Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 8, May
24, 2005

Correlates
of Genital Perceptions among Canadian Post-Secondary Students

1. Department of Psychology, National
University of Ireland, Galway, IRELAND.
2. Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, CANADA.
3. Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, CANADA.
Address all correspondence to Dr. Todd G. Morrison, Department of Psychology,
National University of Ireland, Galway (Email: Todd.Morrison@nuigalway.ie)

Abstract

The current research summarizes three studies (Ns = 312, 584, and 176) examining
genital perceptions among groups of Canadian post-secondary students. Results
indicated that male participants evidenced consistently more favourable views
of their genitalia in comparison to female participants. Men and women who were
non-virgins (i.e., had engaged in vaginal and/or anal intercourse) also reported
more favourable perceptions than their virgin counterparts. In addition, among
those who were sexually experienced, the favourability of their genital perceptions
correlated positively with sexual esteem, and negatively with body-image self-consciousness
and sexual anxiety. Finally, item analysis suggested that, for men, the locus
of genital dissatisfaction was penis size whereas for women, the loci were genital
odour and pubic hair (amount and texture). Limitations of the current research
and directions for future inquiry are provided.

Research suggests that perceptions of physical appearance are associated with
variations in sexual functioning. For example, in a large survey of female readers
of Shape magazine (N = 3,627), Ackard, Kearney-Cooke, and Peterson (2000)
found that those who reported being satisfied "when they looked at their
body in a mirror" (p. 424) were more likely than their dissatisfied counterparts
to feel comfortable undressing in front of their partner; have sex with the
lights on; and initiate new sexual activities. In addition, participants satisfied
with their bodies expressed greater confidence in their ability to provide sexual
pleasure to their partner, and reported having sex more often and being more
likely to achieve orgasm. Wiederman and Hurst (1998) similarly identified differences
in sexual activity as a function of perceived attractiveness. Female participants
who had experienced cunnilingus evidenced significantly higher mean scores on
a single-item measure of self-rated bodily attractiveness than those who had
never experienced this form of oral sex. The authors also found that participants'
sexual esteem (i.e., the tendency to view oneself positively as a sexual partner)
correlated positively with self-rated bodily and facial attractiveness. Finally,
Cash, Maikkula, and Yamamiya (2004) examined the association between body-image
and sexual functioning in samples of male and female college students. In this
study, dispositional and situational body-images were measured. The former conceptualises
satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with one's physical appearance as a global
trait whereas the latter focuses on body-image as it is experienced within specific
contexts (e.g., during sexual intimacy). Results indicated that participants'
general body satisfaction correlated negatively with their level of anxiety
about exposing parts of the body during sexual activity (i.e., situational body-image).
Intriguingly, multiple regression analysis revealed that situational, but not
dispositional, body-image emerged as a significant predictor of sexual functioning
for male and female participants. The nature of the association was negative
such that greater anxiety about the body during sexual activity was associated
with poorer sexual functioning. This finding suggests that perceptions of the
body during sexual activity may play a more important role in sexual functioning
than assessments of physical appearance that are not context specific.

Although body-image and sexual functioning have received empirical scrutiny,
surprisingly little research has examined the association between individuals'
genital perceptions and their sexual attitudes and behaviours. Winter (1989)
reported that male participants who described themselves as possessing large
genitalia evidenced more favourable genital image, body image, and beliefs about
their sexual abilities, as opposed to those who described their genitalia as
being average or small in size. Using a small sample of female clients seeking
treatment for an unspecified sexual dysfunction, Berman and associates (2003)
found that participants' genital self-image correlated negatively with levels
of sexual distress and depression. A non-significant correlation was obtained
between genital perceptions and scores on a measure of female sexual functioning;
however, the size of this correlation (.34) suggests that its non-significance
is attributable to the small number of participants used (N = 31). To the authors'
knowledge, only one published study provides comparative information on men
and women's genital perceptions. Reinholtz and Muehlenhard (1995) found that,
as hypothesized, perceptions of male college students were more favourable than
those of female college students. In addition, the favourability of participants'
genital perceptions correlated positively with involvement in, and self-reported
enjoyment of, specific sexual activities (e.g., oral sex). Based on the findings
obtained in their study, the authors concluded that "attitudes toward the
genitals are an important facet of human sexual experience" (p. 164).

The purpose of the current research was to expand understanding of the correlates
of genital perceptions among non-clinical samples of men and women. Three studies
were conducted (Ns = 312, 584, 176) with samples of university students attending
institutions located in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan (Canada).

STUDY 1

In this study, male and female genital perceptions were examined in relation
to sexual status (virgin/non-virgin), sexual-esteem, and body satisfaction.
On the basis of the preceding review of the literature, the following hypotheses
were formulated:

Hypothesis 1:
Non-virgins will evidence more favourable genital perceptions than will virgins.

Hypothesis 2:
The favourability of genital perceptions will correlate positively with body
satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3:
The favourability of genital perceptions will correlate positively with sexual-esteem.

Hypothesis 4:
Males will evidence more favourable genital perceptions than will females.

Participants received a questionnaire that contained a variety of measures.
However, only those pertinent to the current research are described. It
should be noted that all measures were coded such that higher scores denote
more of the construct in question. As well, information concerning reliability
and validity is provided by the authors cited.

Body-image Inventory (BII;
Levitan, 1983). The BII consists of 40 items and examines satisfaction
with various features of the body (e.g., hands, face, and weight). In
the current study, a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very
satisfied) was used, with total scale scores ranging from 40 to 200.

Male Genital Image Scale (MGIS; Winter, 1989). This 14-item
scale measures how men perceive various aspects of their genitals (e.g., length,
circumference, and appearance). The rating scale is identical to the one
used by the FGIS, and total scale scores can range from 14 to 70.

Sexual-Esteem Scale (SES;
Snell & Papini, 1989). The SES contains 10 items (e.g., I think
of myself as a very good sexual partner) and, in the current study, uses a 6-point
Likert-type response format (0 = not applicable; 5 = very often). Five
items are reverse keyed to avoid response bias, with total scores ranging from
0 to 50.

Procedure

The proposed research was approved by an Ethics Review
Board. Permission then was solicited from instructors of various classes
to determine whether they would be willing to allow one of the authors to distribute
the questionnaire during class time. Instructors were informed of the
purpose of the study and given details concerning the study's adherence to ethical
requirements for research with human participants. For those instructors
giving their consent, arrangements for data collection (e.g., date and time
of questionnaire distribution) were made.

Prior to getting a questionnaire, all students enrolled
in a given class received a consent form, the details of which highlighted the
voluntary nature of the study; the anonymity and confidentiality of students'
data; and their right to omit any items they wished, without penalty or consequence.
Due to the sensitive nature of the questionnaire, a separate answer booklet
was provided for participants' responses. This booklet contained question
numbers and appropriate rating scales, but not the items themselves. Completion
of the questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes.

Initially, no remuneration was provided for participation
in the study. However, as preliminary data collection revealed a significant
gender disparity (75% female; 25% male), a raffle was organized for those programmes
containing a disproportionate number of male students (e.g., welding).
In accordance with ethical requirements, participants' eligibility for the raffle
was not contingent upon them completing the questionnaire.

Results

Descriptive statistics and alpha coefficients for
all measures are provided in Table
1. Inspection of this table reveals that levels of scale score reliability
were excellent (> .85). Mean scores suggest that both males and females possess
moderate levels of body satisfaction and sexual-esteem, and fairly positive
genital perceptions (i.e., all mean scores were above scale mid-points).

In this study, associations between genital perceptions and body-image
self-consciousness during sexual activity, sexual esteem, sexual anxiety, and
sexual status (i.e., virgin/non-virgin and currently active/inactive) were assessed.
In accordance with available research on body-image and sexual functioning as
well as the findings obtained in Study 1, the following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 1:
Non-virgins will evidence more favourable genital perceptions than will virgins.

Hypothesis 2:
Males and females who report being currently active sexually will evidence more
favourable genital perceptions than those who report being currently inactive.

Body-image Self-Consciousness
Scale (BISC; Wiederman, 2000). The 15-item BISC measures a
woman's body-image self-consciousness during physical intimacy with a partner.
Since both men and women were sampled in Study 2, the scale was modified to
be gender neutral. Specifically, four items were eliminated that focused
on body concerns deemed more pertinent to females than to males (e.g., While
having sex I am (would be) concerned that my hips and thighs would fatten out
and appear larger than they actually are). Therefore, the modified BISC
contains 11 items and uses a 6-point Likert-type rating scale (0 = not applicable;
5 = very often). Higher scores represent greater body-image self-consciousness
(possible range is 0 to 55).

Sex Anxiety Inventory
(SAI; Janda & O'Grady, 1980). The 25-item SAI measures the level of
anxiety an individual may feel in sexual situations that deviate from social
norms. A sample item is: When I awake from sexual dreams a) I feel pleasant
and relaxed or b) I feel tense. Participants select the most appropriate
response from two options; one which denotes anxiety (1) and one which does
not (0). Total scores on the SAI can range from 0 to 25, with higher scores
denoting greater levels of sexual anxiety.

Sexual Experience
(Rothman, Kelly, Weinstein, & O'Leary, 1999). Participants were asked
to respond yes or no to the following: "Have you engaged
in vaginal intercourse?" "Have you engaged in anal intercourse?" "Have you engaged
in vaginal intercourse in the last 4 weeks?" and "Have you engaged in anal intercourse
in the last 4 weeks?" These items were used to identify sexual status (i.e.,
virgin or non-virgin; currently active sexually or currently inactive sexually).

Procedure

In this study, two-thirds of participants received
the questionnaire during a mass testing session, and one-third were given the
questionnaire in small groups of 5 to 10 students each. Details concerning
the study's adherence to ethical requirements for research with human participants
are identical to those provided in Study 1 (i.e., students were informed that
participation was voluntary; they were debriefed at the cessation of the study;
and so on). All participants received course credit for their involvement.

Results

Descriptive statistics and alpha coefficients for
the measures used are given in Table 2. Inspection of this
table reveals that levels of reliability ranged from satisfactory (.78) to excellent
(> .90). Mean scores suggest fairly low levels of sexual anxiety and body-image
self-consciousness during sexual activity (i.e., average totals for men and
women were below the mid-point for each scale) and moderate levels of sexual
esteem and genital favourability.

To test Hypotheses 3 through 5, correlations were computed between scores
on the measures of genital perceptions, sex anxiety, body-image self-consciousness,
and sexual esteem (See Table 3).
All hypotheses were confirmed (i.e., as genital perceptions became more favourable,
sexual anxiety and self-consciousness decreased, and sexual esteem increased).
However, conducting separate analyses as a function of participants' sexual
status revealed that a majority of the correlations were significant only for
those classified as non-virgins.

To identify which variables account for the
greatest proportion of variance in sexual-esteem, multiple regression (MR) analysis
using the enter method was employed. The predictor variables were (in order):
genital perceptions (standardized measure), sex (male/female), sexual status
(virgin/non-virgin), sexual anxiety, and body-image self-consciousness. A destructive
testing approach was adopted whereby participants' score on the standardized
measure of genital perceptions was entered as the first predictor, with each
remaining variable being added to the model on subsequent steps. According to
Anderson and Dill (2000), with destructive testing, the goal is to gauge the
durability of the link established between the criterion measure and the predictor
variable. Therefore, in the current study, of interest was the degree to which
the association between genital perceptions and sexual-esteem remained significant
following the inclusion of additional predictor variables.

Diagnostic statistics were conducted to ensure
the data were suitable for MR analysis. Results indicated that the standardized
residuals had a mean of zero, and a standard deviation of approximately one;
Cook's distance did not exceed an absolute value of 1.0; the variance inflation
factor (VIF) was low (i.e., < 1.3); and the Durbin-Watson statistic approximated
2.0. These findings suggest that (in order) non-normally distributed residuals,
influential outliers, multicollinearity, and autocorrelation of residuals are
not problematic.

The results of destructive testing suggest
that the association between genital perceptions and sexual-esteem remains,
even when variables such as sex of the participant, sexual status, sexual anxiety,
and body-image self-consciousness are considered. While the amount of variance
in sexual-esteem accounted for by genital perceptions is modest (approximately
11%), these findings indicate that it does not appear to be redundant with the
broader constructs included in the multiple regression analysis.

STUDY 3

The purpose of this study was to investigate participants’
responses to each item on the measure of genital perceptions. It was anticipated
that this form of item analysis would permit the researchers to better understand
respondents' locus of dissatisfaction with their genitalia. Given
the exploratory nature of this study, no formal hypotheses were tested.
However, it was anticipated that men's dissatisfaction would be most pronounced
on scale items that assess penis size (e.g., Brod, 1988; Lee, 1996; Pietropinto,
1986) whereas women's dissatisfaction would be most apparent on items assessing
vaginal tightness (e.g., Braun & Kitzinger, 2001; Davis, 2002) and odour
(e.g., Reinholtz & Muehlenhard, 1995). Given that body hair contravenes
hegemonic standards of attractiveness in women (Toerien & Wilkinon, 2003),
it also was expected that items assessing pubic hair would constitute another
locus of dissatisfaction for women.

Method

Participants

A convenience sample of 112 female (63.6%) and 64 male (36.4%) college
students (N = 176) enrolled in both introductory psychology and social
psychology courses completed the questionnaire. The ages of male participants
ranged from 18 to 55 (M = 24.4, SD = 8.4), and the ages of female
participants ranged from 17 to 45 (M = 20.8, SD = 5.3).

Measures

A questionnaire containing a variety of measures was distributed to participants.
However, only the Female and Male Genital Image Scales (FGIS and MGIS) are relevant
to the current study. Details concerning these measures are provided in
Study 1.

Procedure

Ethical approval was obtained from an Ethics Review Board. The
procedure followed was similar to that outlined in Study 1. However, in
this study, only students enrolled in introductory and social psychology classes
were targeted for recruitment and no incentive to participate, such as a raffle,
was provided.

Percentages for each item on the FGIS and MGIS are
provided in Tables 4 and
5, respectively. The three loci of dissatisfaction for men concerned
the length, circumference, and appearance of their non-erect penis. For
women, these loci were the texture and amount of pubic hair, and the smell of
their genitalia.

Inspection of Tables 4 and 5 also suggest that women
in this study may be more likely than men to possess "neutral" attitudes
toward their genitalia. Such neutrality is understandable when one considers
that men's genitals are more visible than women's and, thus, may constitute
a more salient evaluative target1.

To investigate whether female participants evidenced
greater neutrality vis-à-vis genital perceptions, dummy coding was used.
Specifically, the neutral response option was coded as 1, with all other responses
receiving a code of 0. Total scale scores then were computed. Thus, scores on
the MGIS could range from 0 (neutral option was not selected on any item) to
14 (neutral option was selected for each item). As the FGIS contained 12 items,
the possible range was 0 to 12. To permit gender comparisons, scores were standardized
(i.e., divided by the total number of scale items). Therefore, the resultant
score could range from 0 (neutral option was never selected) to 1 (neutral option
was selected for all items). An independent samples t-test revealed that the
mean score for female participants was significantly higher (M = .42,
SD = .35) than the mean score for male participants (M = .30,
SD = .28), t (156.3) = - 2.60, p < .02, d = -.42.
Thus, when instructed to rate their levels of satisfaction with various parts
of their genitals, women in this study were more likely than men to select the
neutral option. However, it should be noted that the magnitude of this gender
difference, as determined by Cohen's d, was small.

General Discussion

Findings suggest that, among samples of Canadian
post-secondary students, the favourability of their genital perceptions varies
reliably as a function of gender (i.e., males evidence more favourable perceptions)
and sexual status (i.e., non-virgins evidence more favourable perceptions as
do those who report being currently active sexually). In addition, for non-virgin
participants, favourability of genital perceptions correlated positively with
sexual esteem and negatively with sexual anxiety and body-image self-consciousness
during physical intimacy. For virgins, patterns of significant correlations
were less reliable. Exploratory analyses revealed that genital perceptions emerged
as a significant, albeit modest, predictor of sexual esteem, even when broad
constructs such as sexual anxiety and body-image self-consciousness were taken
into consideration. Finally, inspection of responses to each item on the genital
perceptions measure provided illuminating information, with men appearing to
be most dissatisfied with the size of their penis while women's dissatisfaction
centred upon amount of pubic hair and genital odour. The findings concerning
differences between men and women are qualified, however, by the discovery that
women's responses on the genital perceptions measure were more likely than men's
to be neutral. Although the practical significance of this gender difference
was quite modest, the reasons underlying women's apparent neutrality toward
their genitalia warrants investigation.

There are a number of limitations to the current
series of studies that should be mentioned. First, participants were students
enrolled in post-secondary institutions and not members of the general population.
Although it is difficult to construct compelling arguments with respect to why
the correlations reported herein would not be found outside of a post-secondary
milieu, in the absence of research with non-student samples, this caveat must
be issued.

Second, given the sensitive nature of these studies,
it is entirely possible that those who volunteered differ in important ways
from those who refused to do so (Bogaert, 1996; Wiederman, 1999). The issue
of volunteer bias is particularly important when examining the proportional
data provided in Tables 4 and 5. One should not assume that these percentages
reflect the average person's perceptions of his or her genitalia. Indeed, given
the possibility that participants in these studies were those who are particularly
comfortable with sexual matters, these percentages may represent upper estimates
of favourability.

Third, research suggests that individuals may be
less prone to tell the truth when asked to complete measures focusing on sexual
behaviours (e.g., number of lifetime sexual partners - see Brink, 1995). While
the importance of providing honest answers was stressed, and care was taken
to reassure participants that the information they provided would be anonymous
and confidential, there is no guarantee that these details provided sufficient
comfort to the individuals surveyed. The mean scale scores obtained in these
studies demonstrate that ceiling and floor effects were not problematic; however,
the absence of extreme scores is not tantamount to "truthful" responding
(i.e., participants may have simply selected response mid-points). Future research
should address this issue by measuring social desirability bias and, if necessary,
treating it as a covariate.

Fourth, as all studies were non-experimental, a causal
framework can not be applied to these findings. It would be erroneous to conclude,
for example, that genital perceptions cause increases or decreases in variables
such as sexual esteem or sexual anxiety (and vice versa).

In terms of future research, a number of questions
arise. Are socio-demographic factors associated with variations in the favourability
of genital perceptions? For example, in a recent meta-analysis by Morrison,
Morrison, and Sager (2004), effect sizes suggested a slight difference in body
satisfaction as a function of sexual orientation (i.e., heterosexual men and
- in a small subset of studies - lesbian women were slightly more satisfied
with their bodies than gay men and heterosexual women). Does a similar difference
exist in terms of genital perceptions? Also, do self-other comparisons on the
dimension of genitalia influence how individuals perceive their genitals? Social
Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954), which has been used to understand linkages
between exposure to idealistic images of the body and self-perceptions of physical
attractiveness, would appear to be a useful framework. Specifically, do comparisons
to the "idealistic" genitals depicted in sexually explicit material
(SEM) affect men and women's genital attitudes? Previous quantitative research
has suggested that viewing SEM contributes to men rating their penis as smaller
than average (Brod, 1988; Lee, 1996). For women, no published experimental studies
have addressed this issue. However, an article in the Canadian magazine See
(1997 as cited in Davis, 2002) identified women who said viewing SEM in magazines
and movies started them thinking about comparing their genitalia to the models
featured in these media. In particular, these women commented on a desire to
focus on the "abnormalities" of their own genitals.

Qualitative research may prove helpful in particularising
why individuals are dissatisfied with certain features of their genitalia.
For example, if a woman reports that she is dissatisfied with the smell of her
vulva, it is important to tease apart what that means. Is her dissatisfaction
based, in part, on mass media (e.g., advertisements for "feminine hygiene"
products) which make body odours problematic? Do other factors play a role and,
if so, what are they? How does she think her genitals smell in comparison to
the "average" woman? What sort of odour would she like her genitals
to have? As mentioned earlier, the salience of genital perceptions to men and
women also warrants attention. For example, does the neutrality identified among
some women in the current study reflect the fact that women's genitalia are
less visible than men's? Or is the dimension of visibility fairly unimportant?
Finally, self-reflective studies with social scientists (especially sexologists)
are needed. Why do they think the topic of genital perceptions has been ignored
by researchers? Is it because this area of study is viewed as trivial, smutty,
or on the boundary of legitimate culture (Johnson, 1999)?

In conclusion, our findings reiterate the assertion
made by other social scientists such as Reinholtz and Muehlenhard (1995) that
perceptions of genitalia are associated with variations in sexual functioning.
Despite the critical role that sexuality plays in the lives of most individuals,
to date, the topic of genital perceptions has received scant empirical attention.
It is our hope that studies such as this one will motivate other researchers
to examine this unjustly neglected area of inquiry.

Levitan, J. (1983). The relationship
between body-image and sexual control, sexual anxiety, and sexual assertiveness
in selected groups of college women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
New York University.

Winter, H. C. (1989). An examination of the relationships
between penis size and body image genital image, and perception of sexual
competency in the male. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.